User talk:31dot/Archive2011
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive, the 2009 archive, and the 2010 archive. No external links in articles Does this apply to all MA articles? I believe I have seen external links (especially to wikipedia) within many many articles in MA. I dont know if those just havent been discovered yet - but i just want to be sure on the rule. Thx.– Distantlycharmed 21:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :It applies to in-universe articles, as wikipedia is not a part of the Star Trek universe. I believe it's more acceptable in real world articles, although a seperate section is best so that it is clear that a link is external.--31dot 22:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Thank you Thank you your advice and help is very considerate.--Four of Five 23:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)Four of Five Bob Sabaroff I can't find a way to email you, 31Dot, so I'm leaving this on your userpage. Bob Sabaroff was a dear, dear friend in LA days. One of my dearest and closest. I merely wrote on his page what he told me. Yes, perhaps it was uncited. But not relevant to Star Trek? I'd be very surprised if you knew Bob. :First and foremost, it's not cited. I might have left it if it had been. Even if I 100% believe you, this is an encyclopedia- there needs to be documentation to back up content in articles. This ensures they are not just made up- which I don't think you did, but I'm sure you could understand how someone could think so. We only have your word that it was what you were told- we need something more.--31dot 01:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC) 1312.4 My apologies for feeling the need to come to you with this 31dot, but I’ve just spent the last 20 minutes or so undoing 1312.4’s changes to a number of DS9 articles featuring links to the second Defiant, where he had changed them to the page of his creation. Is there a way to prevent this going forward, as it would seem he is determined to force his opinions onto everyone here? Perhaps the page USS Defiant (Sao Paulo) could be deleted, since the consensus that is in the process of being reached has veered away from his suggestion? – Commander Scott 07:48, 23 July, 2010 (BST) :If I looked at it right, those editing actions were before my earlier warning to him(on his talk page). I actually didn't notice those before, so thank you for the reversions. I think he hasn't done anything like that since then. As for the deletion of that page, we can probably do that once the issue is sorted out.--31dot 08:48, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think you're right come to think of it. Since I also asked him not to do it again on his user page, it looks like I owe him an apology since it's likely he already knows not to do it again following his chat with you. -- Commander Scott 10:17, 23 July, 2010 (BST) Sorry to knock on your door again 31dot, but I feel the need to lodge an official complaint about the way this guy has been sending rude and condescending remarks in my direction. Is there a way for me to do this, as I can no longer tolerate his personal comments? -- Commander Scott 18:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC) :Don't be sorry for contacting me, that's why we're all here. :) Regarding your subject, he just posted that he is no longer interested in responding to any posts on that discussion, so that should be the end of the back-and-forth. Just in case I will remind him of the no personal attacks policy. --31dot 18:50, July 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks mate, I'll keep my fingers crossed in the hope that he actually keeps his word. :-) -- Commander Scott 19:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Drex You Asked the following 13:55, August 7, 2010 31dot (Talk | contribs) (3,047 bytes) (Undo revision 1160378 by Gary Mintz (talk)why remove this?) (undo) Perhaps it is just me but there was no image of Drex there unless you clicked on it. So I placed a thumb nail type image there. Perhaps you can advise as to what the best Browser to use that will show images I have tried Firefox, Chrome and IE I still see no image of Drex unless I click on it. :Do not remove any images that won't display. That's a problem with Wikias servers, or something, and not this site or your browser. - 03:42, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Noted Thank you --Gary Mintz 03:46, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Changes I would just like to know why you deleted my edit of the intrepid class page? Admiralalexmann 11:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC) :I did not remove your entire edit, only the part about transphasic torpedoes, which are not standard armament of an Intrepid class ship.--31dot 11:49, August 10, 2010 (UTC) I simply said that with modification they could fire them, and since voyager returned they have been carried by the federation as a last resort. Admiralalexmann 14:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC) ::In regards to the transphasic torpedoes being carried by the Federation as a last resort, information from the novels doesn't apply to the articles here on Memory Alpha, Alex. That kind of information is for Memory Beta. At this point, (given that you’ve questioned me on my page as well) I think that you need to review the policies of this Wiki to ensure that you're fully versed on what information is deemed to be applicable. -- Commander Scott 14:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC) Nitpicking..? Hi there, I added an anachronism regarding a Citroen 2CV to Voyager's The Killing Game episode under Background, which you removed as nitpicking. I wonder why that is nitpicking whereas in the Background info for The Killing Game, Part II there's a similar entry regarding the US weapons used by the Resistance they stole from the Germans. Isn't this the same thing? Either my addition could've been left on the page or the weapons info can be removed from the other, IMO. Regards, DanteG : if I may - I have to agree. This is not nit-picking. It is interesting information. If we intend to be a comprehensive encyclopedia then why not mention things like they used a 1980 car in a WWII scenario. It's not like he is mentioning the different shades of uniform colors for main actors vs extras, which I happen to have read actually in background info sections. – Distantlycharmed 19:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC) ::To quote the nitpick policy, the following is not allowed: "Comparisons or discrepancies between the Star Trek universe and the real world". Saying that the fact a 1980s car was used in the production is out-of-place is a nitpick, as it was a holodeck simulation, maybe the program took some liberties with the technology used, or maybe the WWII in that reality was different, or whatever. Is in an anachronism in the real world? Yes. Is it in the Star Trek world? We don't know. ::The weapons information should be removed. Maybe they stole weapons that the Germans captured. --31dot 23:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::Hi & thanks for explaining. About the weapons, my thoughts exactly, 31dot ;-) I'll make sure to read the policies more carefully next time! - DanteG 23:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC) Ok but the policy also states that sometimes nit pick is "difficult to define". What constitutes nit pick seems to be arbitrary sometimes. I also find the nit pick policy in my opinion to be flawed as it is depriving people/readers of interesting trivia for no apparent reason. I understand that adding stuff like "crew member is seen chewing gum" can get too much, but mentioning that they used a car from four decades later is interesting. I also found it interesting to read that Denise Crosby winked the audience goodbye in the background before her departure in the next episode, "Skin of Evil." Anyway I am not arguing or pushing for this particular entry to stay, but i just wanted to make this observation about nit pick as I keep seeing interesting info constantly removed because of that. – Distantlycharmed 00:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Crosby waving goodbye is not a nitpick- it is well cited that she did so deliberately. Anything that can be cited is valid for posting, including nitpicks. It is the uncited ones we are trying to avoid, and even the cited ones need to be worded carefully. I would suggest you review Memory Alpha talk:Nitpick for why the policy is the way it is. As with any policy, it is not written on an Optolythic data rod, so feel free to suggest changes.--31dot 00:45, August 16, 2010 (UTC) Warp field image Not personal, just a shitty size. Potentially decent image to use on the warp field article, but not at the size it was uploaded as. -- sulfur 12:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Do you know the source? Or did someone just make it up?(in which case, what it is based on?)--31dot 12:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC) No idea to both. With the name used, it's almost certainly a thumbnail image from a wiki somewhere, possibly Wikipedia. In fact, it's from here. -- sulfur 12:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Deletion discussions What's your call on this? They did sign after all, and so far it's the only vote. - 17:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :Looks like it settled itself :) but I think the fact that they put a name does not matter- it's still an anon account. --31dot 19:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC) my article Just wondering why you axed my addition to the Archer page? What i wrote were intended only to apply to his missions on Enterprise, and not to what happened afterwards. camorite 12:11, 8-6-10 (UTC) :I reverted it mainly because it's not true as written- Archer's life was changed the moment the Kelvin was destroyed- the comment did not mention before or after. Such a comment is already at the top of the Star Trek: Enterprise page, where it should be, as it's the entire show, not just individual characters, that were(or were not) affected. If were were going to put the comment back in the Archer article, I would word it like the comment on the Enterprise page- replacing "Enterprise is the only production" with "Archer is the only lead character" or something similar.--31dot 11:34, September 6, 2010 (UTC) "My" Vandalism? This IP adress is a school's IP, so many users will be vandalising, and non-vandals will get the vandalising message. It's better to block the school's IP if it happens again. Sorry for the inconvenience tagged with shared IPs and stuff. 13:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :I don't entirely understand what you are discussing. According to my log I have never blocked that address.--31dot 00:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC) ::It's not always about blocking. Try looking at the talk page. -- sulfur 01:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC) :Ah thank you, I did not go back far enough. I had assumed it was something I'd done recently. I thought I had looked at that talk page but I probably got them mixed up.--31dot 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Thanks and past-tense question Dear 31dot, I posted the following on the Fourier analysis talk page, but then I realized I probably should have asked you here. Do you mind answering me there? It's incredibly hard for me to retype stuff on an iPod. :( Regards, --Cepstrum 14:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC) Congrats Congrats on 10,000 edits. -Angry Future Romulan 02:25, September 21, 2010 (UTC) Paxans I went with probably as they are never actually seen. Unless that green energy blob Troi thought she saw was one. which it probably was. their ability to possess Troi seems to support that.--Marhawkman 22:10, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :Can you point out the page/edit you are discussing?--31dot 22:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC) :Are you referring to the incite tag I put on a comment on the Paxan article two years ago? --31dot 22:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC) Non-humanoid_species when I added the Paxans I put a note about how they were "probably" non-corporeal.--Marhawkman 16:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :We shouldn't do "probably". A species either is or isn't corporeal. If we don't see them, then we shouldn't say one or the other. In this case, we should go with what we have seen.31dot 16:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, Actually thinking again we can't be certain we've seen them. The amorphous green energy was probably them, but we can't be sure. I guess leaving it the way it is is best.--Marhawkman 19:56, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Wait.... If they're a non-corporeal species wouldn't having them in both lists be redundant?--Marhawkman 19:59, September 30, 2010 (UTC) Photo 31dot: I am the author of the following edit to Bill Hickey's page: "Note: The photo on the last page of Robert Justman's "Inside Star trek" is from the 1975 Star Terk con in Philadelphia, NOT the New York con (which I also attended). Bill Hickey is shown on the left of the photo; on the right (obscured) is Brad Nelson. I am between them, in dark shirt. -Arthur T. Philadelphia.:" If any problem posting this, please advise. I am the person in the photo indicated. Bill cal attest to this. -Arthur T., Philadelphia, PA. :I would suggest that you contact User:Shran, who has communicated with others who have worked on Star Trek and will be able to confirm your statement. 31dot 19:29, October 1, 2010 (UTC) A newbie's request for advice/help Dear 31Dot, I have been trying to become a positive contributor here, though I admit I am learning as I go. User:Sulfur has tended to make immediate (ie, within a minute or two) changes, reverts, etc., to my edits. Most of the changes are extremely helpful and neutral (eg, relating to formatting issues). I've learned a lot just by seeing these changes. In several cases, however, I will attempt to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, either informing what I'm doing, asking if we should do such-and-such, and the like. Unfortunately, in many of the subjective changes I've made, User:Sulfur will just undo them with little or no comment and never with an explanation on the talk page. I have asked that we could discuss such things on the talk page, even if it's just to let me know why my ideas are being shot down (for instance, I thought a lengthy article would benefit from sections, for it was already composed in natural breaks.) I understand that I should not expect to get my way, but I wish we could engage in dialogue on the talk pages when deciding subjective, unclear article edits (ie, those not falling under an MA policy). What do you suggest I do? I have requested that after undoing my changes we discuss on the talk page, but have not seemed to make headway. I feel as though, as kind and helpful as User:Sulfur is, I'm being followed around and continually having my edits undone with little or no explanation. It is very discouraging to me, for I already have a pretty fragile self-esteem. I'm considering quitting altogether if i can't have a dialogue on talk pages. Perhaps that is the intention: to drive people like I, who apparently am a bad editor, away from MA so to purify the quality of editors here. To be sure: in no way do I wish to engage in edit-wars or debates, and I'm prepared to accept the decisions of experienced admins. I just wish I could get a response on the talk page. Please advise. Thanks! --Cepstrum 11:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :I'd pretty much second what Cid Highwind said on your page. If you want to discuss a change to the article on the talk page- then do so. Most users (including Sulfur) are pretty good about responding if they do not indicate a reason for their change in the edit summary. 31dot 00:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Help Hey i got a message from you and it wont go away. worse i cant edit pages on other wikis with the message still up. please help. 15:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :I assume you are referring to the automated welcome message. I did not send it personally, but it attached my name as the last admin to make an edit. Once you view your talk page, the blue message box directing you there should go away.--31dot 17:57, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Past tense I just wanted to comment on your reverting my edits to the "Intruder alert" entry. It's interesting that each of the following alert signals use the present tense in one way or another: Red alert Yellow alert Blue alert Double red alert Battle stations If you're interested in making things consistent, you should probably have gone after the edits straying from the norm, rather than the other way around. :Seeing something done in one place does not mean it is correct. As you can see, the other articles have now been changed to past tense per MA:POV. If you disagree with the policy, I would suggest commenting there.--31dot 15:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC) I was only commenting on the hopelessness of the stated goal. As you can see, I've made a useful contribution while also expressing my annoyance. Without my "incorrect" edit, those articles would have remained inconsistent, perhaps indefinitely, only to be chronicled in the past tense when Memory Alpha ceases to exist ;-) :The next time I would suggest commenting on the relevant article's talk page, as the issue does not just involve me personally.--31dot 16:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC) Protecting pages It's best if you can let an admin not involved in the "edit war" protect the page. Just fyi. -- sulfur 19:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :Normally I do but I felt in this instance where the other party was making a blantantly incorrect edit that it would be OK. --31dot 19:07, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the Welcome! Thanks for the welcome message! I will get my profile set up when I have more time to get it done right. I do have a question - how does one join the community? Take care! Themoodyblue 21:41, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Images without details... Just use on those. Adds the PNAs and some text. -- sulfur 11:35, November 9, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, didn't know about that one. Thanks --31dot 11:49, November 9, 2010 (UTC) It's actually a "left behind" from when we had the ability to auto-select licenses on uploads. 90% of people chose "none selected", which puts that template on the page. So I knocked out that template to combine all of the PNAs that are generally needed. Heh. Then we got rid of the license selection box, but the template stayed due to usefulness. :) -- sulfur 12:05, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Thanks 31dot, Thank you for trying to stick up for me. I know I am in error. I added a final response to the unfortunate discussion on Sulfur's talk page. I know you're a good, long-time admin. If you can offer any help/feedback/advice/tips to me, I'd appreciate a message (but on my talk page, preferably.) Thus far, only Defiant has offered both negative and positive feedback; I think he was just to try to make me feel better. So, if you're willing and can spare a few moments to assess whether I should indeed quit based on my contributions. (Please don't feel obligated, though!) Regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 15:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Request for advice Hi, 31dot. Thank you for the helpful tips you've posted on my talk page. On it you indicated you'd be willing to help guide me along, if I ended up electing to stick around. Well, I did decide to continue trying to become a useful contributor to MA. I'd like to take advantage of that offer now, if I may. It concerns the discussion [[Talk:USS Voyager#Reversions to my prose|'here']]. The context: I had thought the article could use some significant prose/style improvements and grammar corrections. It's a long article and daunting task, so I started small. I then solicited feedback on my initial edits on the talk page. Nero210 responded, saying I should continue (I was debating about undertaking such a project, and I wanted to only if a consensus formed stating I should.) After little thought, I told him I would go ahead, albeit slowly. Soon after, Distantlycharmed made two edits (marked "minor") that essentially undermined the streamlined style I was attempting to incorporate, changing many things back to their original state. It had taken me a long time to change the writing, and I had had a major health crisis early that morning, which drained my energy and will to argue for preserving the new style. After seeing that DC was likely going to change back a lot of any further prose edits and upon realizing I simply hadn't the energy to discuss each change or even write any more myself anyway, I posted that, because she was going to be ensuring at least someone was willing to look after the article (made clear by her changing my edits), I decided to hold-off on rewriting the rest of the very long article. I was content knowing I'' didn't have to do more heavy lifting and that she would ensure the article would stay in decent and consistent shape (at first I was worried no one was paying attention to it closely, except for the omnipresent good Mr. Sulfur, of course! But he tends to keep his edits to bug fixes.) She then responded that I was behaving badly, that I wrote 20k worth of material insisting she not touch anything and that I demanded apologies from her (and from others in separate cases, something I was unaware of). I ''thought in my initial post I had tried to make it clear I had "no problems" at all but just hadn't the energy to engage in back-and-forth discussions about something ultimately as trivial as prose style (vis-á-vis content changes), especially because I was I'm sure no two editors would agree on (after all, there's no one "right" way – there isn't even an official standard of English grammar!) I was a little confused by her response (and actually, a little hurt – but maybe unjustly; I don't know), so I figured I must have misrepresented myself. I thus tried to respond with a rather lengthy note trying to clarify things and make it clear her edits caused me no worries. I'm very anxious to know: was I right to do so? Was my initial post that bad? (I'd hate to think that it was. I don't wish to hurt others or create conflict.) How should I have handled this? It's my first experience in which a fellow editor became upset and accused me of acting improperly based on editing and talking about an article. (By now I'm used to admins telling me I made logistical/technical/policy errors.) Please let me know your thoughts. I very much want to behave properly toward my fellow editors. It saddens me to think I caused another grief. How would have you handled it? Was my follow-up post the right thing to do, or should have I responded on her talk page, or even not responded at all? Please help me, if you are willing and can spare the time! Feel free to respond here, my talk page, or anywhere you think is best. Thank you. --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 14:02, November 13, 2010 (UTC) PS This is not an attempt to try to complain against Distantlycharmed or "go after her" by involving an admin. It's rather about my behavior. I evidently hurt her feelings, and I don't want to be doing that sort of thing to anyone, ever. MA is supposed to be a fun place for all, and I don't wish to create a negative experience for someone else. :( I'' certainly feel bad after reading her characterization of me. :There is a lot of info about this to sort through- but to start your initial post seemed fine.--31dot 23:11, November 13, 2010 (UTC) :I will also say that once the subject started to drift away from its intended subject(from discussing the merits of changes made in the article to discussing the manner in which you post) the conversation in that area should have moved to a personal talk page so that the article talk page could remain about discussing the article. That applies to both you and DC(who was out of line by saying you were 'whining') :The things that OuroborosCobra said were pretty much what I would have said.--31dot 23:35, November 13, 2010 (UTC) ''(Note: the following, posted 14:27, November 14, 2010 (UTC), was far too long and extraneous. I condensed it for brevity while trying to preserve its substance, along with inserting my new posting plan. The original is available [[User_Talk:Cepstrum/Removed#User talk: 31dot|'here']].) Ok, thank you for the info. I hate that I caused such mayhem. I actually don't mind having my edits reverted; my principal concern is not annoying others (something I've done in abundance thus far). Henceforth, I will try for short, relevant posts and stop the repetitive apologies. I feel so bad about the whole thing! :( --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 13:07, November 17, 2010 (UTC) "Phrase" vs "Idiom" Can you change your nomination over yonder to say "use of idioms" instead of "use of phrases"? DC has already gotten a bit...emotional on the article talk page when you kept calling it things other than an idiom, and I really don't want to see that discussion or the deletion nomination degrade into emotional text walls of 2+ kb in length over just that issue. You know it will, too. Just call it an idiom, he happens to be right that it is an idiom, and in this case I don't want to see a bee's nest needlessly kicked. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:30, November 23, 2010 (UTC) :Good point. Thank you. --31dot 11:35, November 23, 2010 (UTC)